Jump to content

Running behind your own man


Recommended Posts

Posted

There was one decision last night where joe westerman had the ball and matty Ashurst ran through didn’t obstruct anyone but westerman ran behind him, penalty given for not surrendering to the tackle. Similar tonight involving Tommy makinson for saints , nobody obstructed but penalty given. Am I right in thinking the nrl have stopped this? As long as there’s no advantage gained you can play on? Seems wrong to me..

f3gms4.jpg

Posted
7 minutes ago, WakefieldCityLoyal said:

I don’t know the rules of Rugby League anymore.

As a social experiment, I would like to get two teams and play a game of Rugby League and referee it as it is written in the laws of the game.  I would love to see if we enjoyed it.

"The history of the world is the history of the triumph of the heartless over the mindless." — Sir Humphrey Appleby.

"If someone doesn't value evidence, what evidence are you going to provide to prove that they should value it? If someone doesn't value logic, what logical argument could you provide to show the importance of logic?" — Sam Harris

Posted
3 minutes ago, Dunbar said:

As a social experiment, I would like to get two teams and play a game of Rugby League and referee it as it is written in the laws of the game.  I would love to see if we enjoyed it.

I would guess that the game would be 2 hours long and you'd blow the pee out of your whistle 🙂 

Posted

Oh don’t get me started. I thought you were allowed to steal the ball one on one, but apparently not if the attacker has broken through the line. New rules every week.

Posted
6 hours ago, weloveyouwakefield2 said:

There was one decision last night where joe westerman had the ball and matty Ashurst ran through didn’t obstruct anyone but westerman ran behind him, penalty given for not surrendering to the tackle. Similar tonight involving Tommy makinson for saints , nobody obstructed but penalty given. Am I right in thinking the nrl have stopped this? As long as there’s no advantage gained you can play on? Seems wrong to me..

I thought they'd reduced the obstruction calls if no-one was actually obstructed a few years ago.

For me, the referee should identify at least one player who was obstructed when giving a decision. 

Posted

The real problem with grey areas in rules is when they're applied to your team.

Soy Ramon y este es mi camión....

 

 

 

Posted
8 hours ago, WakefieldCityLoyal said:

I don’t know the rules of Rugby League anymore.

No one ever did though a fair few folk like to imagine they're the only ones that do.

Although Rule 345~B section five : No Opponent can steal a ball from a player who's broken through the line except on the third Friday in a month with an R in it is my all time personal favourite.

Soy Ramon y este es mi camión....

 

 

 

Posted

And apparently, the attacker falling to the floor when running around the back of another attacker negates the penalty. Sometimes you even here the referee say 'go down'.

That is not in the laws of the game. Once upon a time, it may even have been called a voluntary tackle and the attacker penalised for that.

The laws of the sport are inconsistently applied, sometimes we make them up and sometimes ignore others. A total mess. 

Posted

At Leigh we see new interpretations go against us every week, ''WTH was that for'' is now the most common phrase on matchdays. Last week we found out you can knock a ball back (attack) with your foot on the floor out of play, its even endorsed by the In Goal 2 feet away.

Posted

To the letter of the law the Ref's were right to give the penalties, I think the fault lies in how the Ref's have been told to interpret the rule. In both the instances mentioned, nobody was obstructed and the attacking team didn't gain an advantage directly from it, so the game should have just played on

St.Helens - The Home of record breaking Rugby Champions

 

Posted

I would prefer RL to have more of a Soccer interpretation of obstruction. Only if a player in motion wilfully cuts across the line between teammate and opponent is it deemed obstruction. In RL, we apply this in relation to kick reception, why not in other circumstances? We`re foregoing more intricate patterns of play in exchange for rigid clarity.

Why is it unacceptable to run behind your own player, if that player remains static and defenders can adjust?  It`s become increasingly hard for full-backs to pick out a line on kick returns without risking an obstruction call.

Like a lot of rigid interpretations, there`s a ratcheting effect. In lower-grade Aussie games this year I`ve seen players penalised for running back across the ruck. Even seen the dummy-half penalised allegedly for using the tackled player as a block. In all these cases the player deemed to be obstructing hadn`t moved. The contact was initiated by the defender, who then threw up their arms demanding a penalty.

Posted
11 hours ago, Oxford said:

Although Rule 345~B section five : No Opponent can steal a ball from a player who's broken through the line except on the third Friday in a month with an R in it is my all time personal favourite.

That rule was amended to only be 31 day month’s with an ‘R’ in it dummy

Posted
40 minutes ago, Sports Prophet said:

That rule was amended to only be 31 day month’s with an ‘R’ in it dummy

Well I heard the International Rules say this only applied at Christmas, Eid and Hannukah and other holidays had to apply in writing. so there, slow coach!

Soy Ramon y este es mi camión....

 

 

 

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.